27 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZXanthos that site lists this game as a Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav d44. But it looks to be a reti opening. Also dieter took the pawn, eventually.
A vote for Maroczy. His play might not be full of flair but you have to respect someone who gives no counterplay:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1002985
Playing through that game you get an idea about how demoralising it would have been to play him. He doesn't sacrifice speculatively, he doesn't play double-edged moves. He just kills al ...[text shortened]... so long and played solid chess (plus he used to play the KID and the Dragon, the same as I do).
What's up wit dat?
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by NyxieNo, that's a queen's gambit position. I'm guessing that they're calling it a declined because he played c6 and e6 as in a declined position. But that could be argued as a misnomer. However, a Reti is Nf3 d5 c4 dxc4. This could've transposed into an English opening, or a King's Indian Defence.
Xanthos that site lists this game as a Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav d44. But it looks to be a reti opening. Also dieter took the pawn, eventually.
What's up wit dat?
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by CalWriterPetrosian is a personal favourite of mine, but i don't think i'd claim he is the best ever...
Tigran Petrosian. No one had a more unique style or was harder to beat. The man who finally dethroned Botvinnik, and the first in many years to win a WC match as the defending champion. Kasparov, in his series on his predessessors, gives tribute to Petrosian and says more effort should be given to serious study of his games.
27 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieYes 1. Nf3 makes it a Reti. However it then transposes into a Semi-Slav position after 4. ... c6. A game's opening is determined by the last opening it is rather than the first.
Xanthos that site lists this game as a Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav d44. But it looks to be a reti opening. Also dieter took the pawn, eventually.
What's up wit dat?
Just because I start a game with 1. c4 doesn't mean it will always be an English. If 1. ... Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 etc. we have the King's Indian Defence.
EDIT: 5. ... dxc4 makes it the Botvinnik System of the Semi-Slav. D44
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZYeah I understand transpose, what I did'nt know is that they were classified by the last opening move, that clears that up, I think...
Yes 1. Nf3 makes it a Reti. However it then transposes into a Semi-Slav position after 4. ... c6. A game's opening is determined by the last opening it is rather than the first.
Just because I start a game with 1. c4 doesn't mean it will always be an English. If 1. ... Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 etc. we have the King's Indian Defence.
Why don't they list opening transposed to opening? Would make a lot more sense really. I also wish they'd name white and black offensive and defensive plays, but o well.
I do find amazing how I can d4 every game and play so many different openings just by doing the moves in a different order.
Also that was a cool game, and that's why I love tal.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZ5 Bg5 takes the game into the anti-Meran rather than 5 e3 which is the Meran. Both are Semi-Slavs, of course, the standard position of which is reached here by a transposition of the first 4 standard moves: 1 d4 d4 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 e6.
Yes 1. Nf3 makes it a Reti. However it then transposes into a Semi-Slav position after 4. ... c6. A game's opening is determined by the last opening it is rather than the first.
Just because I start a game with 1. c4 doesn't mean it will always be an English. If 1. ... Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 etc. we have the King's Indian Defence.
EDIT: 5. ... dxc4 makes it the Botvinnik System of the Semi-Slav. D44
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is about the time that somebody acknowledges what Botvinnik did to Tal. Post game preparation was Botvinnik's strength. Botvinnik was a electrical engineer. If he was a professional chess player he may have had a better match record.
Fischer was the greatest match player in the history of chess. He never lost a match and actually swept some of his Candidates Matches without even a draw, an unheard of feat. I love Tal, but Botvinnik dethroned him in the return match when Botvinnik was 49 and Tal 24! Kasparov's match record is certainly not over impressive; he was trailing h ...[text shortened]... btedly Capablanca; his record in the teens and twenties, a Golden Age for Chess, is unequalled.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAnti-Meran / Botvinnik Variation are the same thing with different names.
5 Bg5 takes the game into the anti-Meran rather than 5 e3 which is the Meran. Both are Semi-Slavs, of course, the standard position of which is reached here by a transposition of the first 4 standard moves: 1 d4 d4 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 e6.
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by fierytormentFischer did more than that. The Russians were cheating. They agreed to take it easy on each other so they could be ready for Fischer. They also had a team of GMs to help their players. Fischer had to best the Russian system.
Not to mention Fischer ripped the Chess world domination by the USSR by himself.
27 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65rock star? well, he's often referred to as "the mozart of chess"...but yes, i would probubly have to put my vote in the capablanca corner. he was never taught chess-he picked it up at 4 by watching his dad play. at 13 he defeated the cuban chess champion (+4 -3=13) and Lasker conceded the world chess title to him without a match (he claimed that capablanca had proven that he deserved the title anyway, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." ). capablanca wanted to win it with a match, however lasker insisted that he was the challenger. the final score? +4 -0 =10, the only title win without loosing a game until kasparov/kramitz in 2000.
what about Capablanca? he was a bit of a 'rock star' too, wasn't he?
In his entire chess career, Capablanca suffered fewer than fifty losses in serious games. He was undefeated for eight consecutive years, from 1916 to 1923 inclusive, a 63-game non-losing streak. only Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann won two or more serious games with the mature Capablanca, but their overall scores were minus (Capa beat Marshall +20 -2 =28, Lasker +6 -2 = 16, Alekhine +9 -7 =33), except for Spielmann who was level (+2 -2 =8).
he also held a position in the cuban foreign office that consisted solely of playing chess, Alekhine, the player who won the world title off of capablanca, refused a rematch after winning the title (a rematch was one of the conditions of the initial match) and also refused to play in the same tournaments as Capablanca.
capablanca was also considered the greatest blitz player of his era, if not all time.
i don't know if he could beat kasparov, but basically he won the world title without playing the current champion and can anyone else say that? i think not...(karpov won it by default, so it doesn't quite count 😛)
plus, he was darn fast!
27 Jul 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI could be wrong, but I thought a game wasn't considered a Reti until Nf3 d5 c4 occurs. 1. Nf3 doesn't make it a Reti according to the sources I have. I'm honestly curious because I often play the Reti, and was under a different impression about its definition.
Yes 1. Nf3 makes it a Reti. However it then transposes into a Semi-Slav position after 4. ... c6. A game's opening is determined by the last opening it is rather than the first.
Just because I start a game with 1. c4 doesn't mean it will always be an English. If 1. ... Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 etc. we have the King's Indian Defence.
EDIT: 5. ... dxc4 makes it the Botvinnik System of the Semi-Slav. D44